amolitor

I'd lose the low wall/barrier at the upper edge. Either burn it down, or clone it, or crop it out. I helps make the image less creepy, by providing a little context, but it also grounds the image in reality, which I don't think it wants to be.

I see a sculptural form, a girl struggling, a disturbing image. Then I see the barrier and I say 'oh, it's just one of those dumb mud run things' which sort of spoils it.

Then I see the barrier and I say 'oh, it's just one of those dumb mud run things' which sort of spoils it.

I just wanted to say that I agree it does work better without the barrier. As far as the mud runs being dumb, I'd have to disagree with that. This was the first one of these I have seen and there was a lot of smiling and laughing coming from the women involved. Most that I saw had a lot of fun.

nemo295

I just wanted to say that I agree it does work better without the barrier. As far as the mud runs being dumb, I'd have to disagree with that. This was the first one of these I have seen and there was a lot of smiling and laughing coming from the women involved. Most that I saw had a lot of fun.

This is the kind of photo that needs some context to help us to know how to feel about it. As an isolated image divorced from any background information, I find it disturbing. Is she dead or injured? Is she the victim of a violent attack? Now that you've told us that it was all play it changes everything. But without that knowledge I wouldn't know what to make of it.

This is the kind of photo that needs some context to help us to know how to feel about it. As an isolated image divorced from any background information, I find it disturbing. Is she dead or injured? Is she the victim of a violent attack? Now that you've told us that it was all play it changes everything. But without that knowledge I wouldn't know what to make of it.

Does an image have to have context to make it effective? Without the context it disturbed you, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing whether that was my intent of not. Feeling nothing (which I guess Slobodan's -1 means) toward an image would be much worse. Is it not ok for a viewer to make up their own mind about an image and what it may mean?

Does an image have to have context to make it effective? Without the context it disturbed you, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing whether that was my intent of not. Feeling nothing (which I guess Slobodan's -1 means) toward an image would be much worse. Is it not ok for a viewer to make up their own mind about an image and what it may mean?

I think context is important. A woman doesn't crawl through mud idly. Either she is having fun in some group effort, or she is fighting for her life trying to escape death or assault. What did you want us to think? Because it is such an unusual setting, if you wanted to show us a fun event you would have shown her face or some element of the obstacle course in the frame. If you want to lead us to believe there is a more sinister theme to the picture then you have succeeded. On balance I think you wanted the viewer to believe the darker side of the possibilities, otherwise you would either have shown context or called the picture "Mud Racer" or similar, rather than "Dirty Girl", which has all sorts of connotations other than mud-filled fun! The monochrome treatment, viewpoint, and exclusion of any context deliberately obscure the reality of the event.Of course it is okay for viewers to make up their own minds about images and what they might mean, in some case. But I see this as an editorial type picture, in which case it is much more important to know the story. Some abstract images can invite interpretation, but surely most of the time as photographers we are trying to convey something to the viewer. What were you trying to convey?

I like the tones and light, but find the picture a bit empty without either face or context.

Jim

Logged

nemo295

Does an image have to have context to make it effective? Without the context it disturbed you, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing whether that was my intent of not. Feeling nothing (which I guess Slobodan's -1 means) toward an image would be much worse. Is it not ok for a viewer to make up their own mind about an image and what it may mean?

Some images need context. This image needs context because it's an image of a human being crawling in mud and because we're human beings looking at it and we care. A person is not an object, like a bicycle. If it were a picture of a bicycle lying in the mud I wouldn't care why it was there and I could evaluate the photograph simply on aesthetic terms. But because the subject is a person lying in the mud, it pushes emotional buttons (at least I hope it does). Jim is right, this is an editorial/human interest photograph. It needs a story behind it, otherwise you're asking us to think of this person as a thing.

Logged

amolitor

Also, this is very sculptural. Without the context, it could be a bronze as easily as a person.

Having the context, for this photograph, is very comforting. With the little wall removed, the photograph becomes ambiguous and quite uncomfortable. Is it a movie still? A bronze? Is it an allegory, a myth I don't know, or actually a woman crawling for her life? It could be anything, and many of the possibilities are uncomfortable to imagine.

nemo295

Also, this is very sculptural. Without the context, it could be a bronze as easily as a person.

Having the context, for this photograph, is very comforting. With the little wall removed, the photograph becomes ambiguous and quite uncomfortable. Is it a movie still? A bronze? Is it an allegory, a myth I don't know, or actually a woman crawling for her life? It could be anything, and many of the possibilities are uncomfortable to imagine.

Not every photograph is, or should be, comfortable.

No, people are most definitely not things.

Having context does not by necessity create comfort. For example, if we knew that this woman was a soldier in Afghanistan who had been wounded in battle, we would not normally feel comfortable about that. But we'd know why. And a photograph is also not a sculpture. A sculpture is a product of the imagination. This photograph is a record of a person in an extreme situation and therefore it demands a context.

Some images need context. This image needs context because it's an image of a human being crawling in mud and because we're human beings looking at it and we care.

I disagree, Doug. To me it is the very lack of context that makes the photograph compelling. It is the ambiguity and the discomfort of not knowing whether we should be disturbed or not that does that. (To me, anyway.)